Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 25 187440 NNY 15 OZ

Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos LinDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: OMB Appeal; In progress
Submitted: 3 July 2025; Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 299 Roehampton Ave; 305 Roehampton Ave
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 3 July 2025
Status: OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: Yes
Size stated in the description: 1,519 units; 101,725 m² gross floor area

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

Redevelopment of 299 Roehampton Avenue with a new purpose-built rental apartment building with a shared 10-storey (33.3 metres) podium element and two towers with a total building height of 59-storeys (189.2 metres, inclusive of 7.0-metre mechanical penthouses). The proposal provides a total gross floor area (GFA) of 101,725 square metres, and 1,519 residential units (218 of which will be rental replacement units). The proposal would retain the existing rental apartment buildings at 305 Roehampton Avenue and 322 Eglinton Avenue East.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

K&G Apartment Holdings Inc.
SM37469 · 2 March 2026 · “299 Roehampton Avenue”
K&G Apartment Holdings Inc.
SM36547 · 15 April 2025 · “299 Roehampton Avenue”
K&G Apartment Holdings Inc.
SM36547 · 15 April 2025 · “305 Roehampton Avenue”
K&G Apartment Holdings Inc.
SM16534 · 3 June 2011 · “299 Roehampton Avenue”
K&G Apartment Holdings Inc.
SM11158 · 21 February 2008 · “299 Roehampton Avenue”
K&G Apartment Holdings Inc.
SM11169 · 21 February 2008 · “299 Roehampton Avenue”
K&G Apartment Holdings Inc.
SM10827 · 13 February 2008 · “299 Roehampton Ave.”

Comparison with similar applications

Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 15

20 lobbied · 36 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=5

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied10%
Matched, unlobbied25%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 15: 20 lobbied and 36 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	20	—	100% (n=2)	0%	10%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	36	—	100% (n=5)	0%	25%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	573	1,925	100% (n=64)	0%	13%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	763	1,793	98% (n=70)	2%	13%	0.05

Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.